slack_conversations_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description discloses the read-only nature and lists returned metadata fields, which is good behavioral transparency. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid channel id) or authentication requirements, but given no annotations, this is adequate for a simple read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a colon to introduce the returned fields. No wasted words; efficiently conveys essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, input, and output (metadata fields). No missing critical information given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the 'channel' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds value by enumerating the metadata fields returned, which helps the agent understand what the tool provides beyond the parameter itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get metadata' and the resource 'single Slack channel by id', listing specific fields returned (name, topic, purpose, member count, archived state). It distinguishes from siblings like slack_list_channels (lists all) and slack_channel_history (history).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies usage context (getting metadata for a specific channel by id) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative sibling tools. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.